Wikipedia continues to be plagued by a series of high profile malicious edits. Unfortunately, many of these edits aren't necessarily malicious. They are just wrong or inaccurate. There are probably hundreds of thousands of inaccurate Wikipedia articles, perhaps just as many hosting malicious edits; but it takes high profile gaffs to affect real change. On the day of Barack Obama's inauguration, Wikipedia reported the deaths of West Virginia's Robert Byrd and Edward Kennedy, who had collapsed during the inaugural lunch. Both reports were false.
This event appears to have compelled Jimmy Wales into being more proactive in improving the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia. Under his proposals many future changes to articles would need to be approved by a group of vetted editors before being published. For me this news is interesting, particularly as it emerges barely two weeks after Google announced that the 100,000th Knol had been created on their 'authoritative and credible' answer to Wikipedia: Knol. Six or seven months ago the discussions focussed on how Knol was the new Wikipedia, now it appears as if Wikipedia might become the new Knol. How bizarre is that?!
Tightening the editing rules of Wikipedia has been on the agenda before and in 2007 this blog discussed how the German Wikipedia was conducting experiments which saw only trusted Wikipedians verifying changes to articles. So, will tightening the editing of Wikipedia make it the new Knol? The short answer is 'no'. Some existing Wikipedia editors can already exert authoritarian control over particular articles and can – in some cases – give the impression that they too have an axe to grind on particular topics. 'Wikipinochets' anyone? Moreover, Knol benefits from its "moderated collaboration" approach, with Knols being created by subject experts whose credentials have been verified. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere near this. Guardian columnist, Marcel Berlins, is probably right about Wikipedia when he states:
"I don't think there's a way of telling what proportion of Wikipedia entries are deficient, whether because of the writer's bias, mischief or lack of knowledge. It's clear that a significant number are questionable, sufficient to lead us to suspect all entries. But to do the right thing - vetting all contributors or contributions - would be impractical and hugely expensive. There is no easy solution. We many just have to accept that Wikipedia's undoubted usefulness comes at the price of occasional - perhaps frequent - inaccuracy. That is a sad conclusion to reach about an encyclopedia."Oh well, back to verifying random facts found on Wikipedia.
